TheBananaKing @ TheBananaKing @lemmy.world

Posts

29

Comments

843

Joined

2 yr. ago

Stop giving money to fucking Israel, what the fuck is wrong with you people

It's almost like you need some of that damn Freeze Peach y'all are complaining so much about.

This is the reason it has to be non-negotiable. Yes, it's expensive, in terms of a lot of people saying stuff you don't want them to say. But in return, when people try to pull this shit, you get to laugh in their face and tell 'em go fuck themselves right in their ear.

And I don't just mean the first-amendment narrow legal definition stuff in the US. I mean the much broader political principle that speech should not be restricted except in commission of a crime.

Our labour laws are a lot better than the US, but there are some gaps.

One of those gaps is out-of-hours work calls/emails: there's currently no explicit protection against your employer insisting you make yourself available.

Lots of unionised workplaces have a 'right to disconnect' clause in the EBA, but if you don't have an EBA, you're on your own.

This legislation aims to fix that.

It would delay them I guess, but unless you plan to clone everyone forever, it wouldn't be a longterm fix. The genepool wouldn't get any bigger, so once your population did breed, you'd have the same problem.

I've had TPM disabled in the BIOS since I got this machine (which is getting pretty long in the tooth, granted). Can't upgrade, doesn't bug me about it.

Next computer will be the latest OS at the time, but I get to decide when that is.

Swiss cheese theory.

Genes code for all the differnet protein molecules in your body; if any of them are damaged, they don't produce that particular protein and your body is all messed up.

This is bad. Luckily, you have two strands of DNA, one from either parent - and a copy of each gene on either strand. If the copy of the gene you need on strand A is broken, no problem, you just use the copy from strand B (or vice-versa).

However, this relies on both strands having all their broken bits in different places.

Think of a slice of swiss cheese - if you need 100% cheese cover on your sandwich, and you have two randomly-selected pieces of swiss cheese, all the holes are going to be in different places, and you'll probably be fine. Maybe there'll be a couple of tiny gaps, but you'll probably get by.

However, if both slices come from right next to each other n the same block, then most if not all the holes are going to line up with each other, and you are fucked.

You have to understand both conservatives and narcissists.

Conservative morality isn't based in utilitarian ethics; it's nothing to do with greater good or least harm. It's about pecking order: those at the top are protected by rules and not bound by them, while those beneath them are bound by rules but not protected by them.

And the important thing to realise is this isn't a cynical observation of a regrettable truth for them, it's aspirational and idealistic. That's how they think it ought to work, and they admire it when they see it.

For them, the world is full of winners and losers. Not only is it good and right and moral for a person in power to abuse that power and violate laws and customs, doing so makes them a winner who deserves to get away with it. To attempt to hold a winner accountable is an affront to the natural order, blasphemy, sacrilege, dragging god from his throne.

And similarly, it's good and right and moral for losers to be punished for violating rules, and to submit to abuse and oppression. All the rules and double standards around gender roles, racial roles, etc are not hypocrisy to them, they're the whole point. High-status people in society (eg rich cishet white men, or police or military officers etc) are celebrated for getting away with things that others are punished for, and demonstrating both sides of the dichotomy is actively desired.

If a cop beats the shit out of a black kid and is rewarded rather than punished, that's justice on both sides for them. The authority figure is allowed to revel in their license to abuse, as is their due, and the black kid is punished with humiliation and further trauma for daring to complain. If a woman is punished for promiscuity while a man is rewarded for having sex with her, ditto.

That's why LGBTQ rights are such a threat to them - making gender identity anything but hardcoded messes with all their hierarchies, as does any change to man=fucker=winner, woman=fuckee=loser, and of course queer=victim=super-loser. It's their whole social order turned on its head and dumped out on the floor.

So amidst all this, dictators are the the ultimate celebrities to them: they don't just get away with murder, they get away with genocide, and wholesale flouting of both national and international law. They are rockstar-gods, accountable to none, the highest status imaginable. They will fawn and grovel and dream of being that great.

(That's why they're all so fucking pro-israel, and why pointing out their genocide and torture of the Palestinians is so completely infeffective - all it's doing in their view is establishing Israel's credentials as untouchable winners.)

On top of that, DJT is a malignant narcissist - as conservative leaders tend to be, since conservative voters admire those personality traits like dictators in miniature.

And narcissists are pathetically dependent on praise from the people above them - it's the strongest hit of self-esteem they can get to fill the eternal sucking void in their souls for a tiny instant, even better than victimising someone themselves and mocking them for it.

So when Putin and the Saudis and the russian mob and every other fucker tossed him some sad little scrap of status, he whined and pissed on the floor like a submissive little lapdog, desperate for more. He got suckered into shady deals that left him owned body and soul, he got suckered into kompromat of all kinds leaving him even more vulnerable to external leverage, and all of this left him grateful for being able to attract the attention of vicious bastards, because it made him feel important and special.

Flanderization is a thing.

You know the whole process where the most cartoonishly exaggerated viewpoints gain the most media attention?

Well, that doesn't only apply to people on the outside - groups and movements internally select for attention-grabbing as well. Over time, whatever gains the most eyeballs gradually becomes normalised. When you get people like Clementine ford unironically saying things like Honestly the coronavirus isn't killing men fast enough, the attention it garners moves the Overton window a little bit each time, pulling the mainstream closer towards it. We've become accustomed to the clickbait, but the kids these days are a lot more resistant to it.

Gen Z are a lot more OK than people give them credit for. They grew up living and breathing meme culture, which is massively intertextual and has more layers of irony than my genX ass can even count. They don't do uncritical acceptance of anyone's messaging, because they contextualise the living shit out of everything they see, and it's frankly terrifying.

I'm willing to bet that a lot of the survey respondents 'looked favourably on' Tate because they find his awfulness hilarious, and because they find pretending to admire him even funnier because of course he's a festering piece of shit, that's the joke (under 27 layers of self-reference). That'd be completely on-brand for my kid, certainly.

At the same time, they're also going to find terms like 'toxic masculinity' unhelpful, because of course they can see how an originally-helpful concept slid via unfortunate phrasing into little more than a derogatory term through popular use and cynical attention-grabbing. They are going to grow into hellaciously effective arts majors, because not only can they see the mechanisms at work, they find them a lot more interesting than the actual content.

I really don't think this poll reflects what people think it does.

You forgot "on track for a 10c rise by the end of the century"

no wait let's talk

Conservative morality isn't based on the things it claims to be.

The foundations are these:

1. Social hierarchy is natural and desirable.
2. The hierarchy is asserted by selective rule-enforcement
3. The game is zero-sum

They literally don't believe that rules should bind high-status people; that's what makes them powerful - and thus admirable - in their eyes.

Rules are only enforced downwards, protecting the strong from the actions of the weak - and violating that principle is the only sin.

That's why they're so hung up on race / gender / sexuality: those things are caste markers to them, and determine the right and proper role for people in their eyes. If someone steps out of their pre-ordained caste, that's violating the hierarchy and eroding the rules that keep society ordered-therefore-safe, and therefore inherently immoral to them.

Every time people post another scoop on Trump getting away with shit, it just affirms his kingly, even godly status in their eyes.

The only thing that can bring him down is defeat and failure, being subjected to rules and forced to submit to them, showing him to be low-status and thus not admirable.

Primary sources, no - just a lot of people talking about it everywhere I go.

Certainly there seem to be vastly more dwellings than households - why do you think that is?

Of course there are better systems, but the rich and powerful hold all the cards.

I went jogging on slightly damp asphalt with my then-7yo.

I tripped on nothing and dislocated the living fuck out of my ankle, to the point that the paramedic insisted on sitting up by my head in the ambulance so she didn't have to look at it - it was indeed extremely cursed.

They said that I escaped major reconstructive surgery by grams and millimetres, but the ligament went to hell and my ankle is now only held together with chewing gum and hope.

Running more than for the bus is off the cards for the rest of my life - however I'm otherwise fine, and I go hiking at every opportunity.

Hm. And if you link the basic levy to the cash rate...

Well, not quite.

The only subsidy would come from the taxes raised in the first place, so it would be revenue-neutral.

Raise taxes on every non-primary-residence, hand them back again if they're rented out.

My only proposal is to skew that handing-back to favour those that rent below the market rate, dragging the market down with them.

Actually no.

Because renting it out for a lot is better than tying up the market; at least it'll soak up some rich idiot.

Also it's not our money - it's coming off the new tax.

https://xkcd.com/221/

French?

• Florina - Va Va Vis
• The Longest Johns - Santiano (only partly in french, but damn bro)
• Cedric Watson - La Vieille Chanson De Mardi Gras